I believe in no man , I trust only God, and as such there is no one who is innocent, None.

Remember Jesus said that if you get angry at someone you have committed murder.

Matthew 5Murder

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

So we are all guilty of breaking the least of the commandments and so we have broken them all in God's view.

Therefore looking at Hitler as worse than me is wrong even though it is easy, and probably moreso because it is so easy and accepted, this to me is man's worst sin, is acting innocent, and acting as if were above those who were seduced by Satan in Germany.This is what Satan uses aginst us when he wants to tempt us.

Thie truth is that many have killed in the name of God many more than what Hitler did, Check how many died in Japan in a few hours.Or how many Blacks were killed maimed and beaten for hundreds of years.Ask the indians about ethnic cleansing.

Good point. I have no problem with remembering the Jewish Holocaust and trying to prevent it from ever happening again. The problem that I have with all of the Holocaust hype is that is all about the Jews, and not the Evil. As has been pointed out, there have been many genocides just in the last two centuries. Why do we not also remember them? Is it because the Armenians, Serbs, Native Americans, Chinese, Ukrainians, Gypsis and the like don't own all of media outlets? The root cause of the Jewish Holocaust is not antisemitism. It is not the Nazi Party. It is not Adolf Hitler. It is the same root cause of all genocides - Evil. The afore mentioned are just tools that were used to execute that evil. Address that and all men can shed their fear of genocide, not just the Jews.

The is no such thing and innocence. Only degrees of guilt.

I would encourage all to visit the National Holocaust Museum in Washington. It is a profoundly moving and educational experience. While focusing on the Jews, the Museum deals with all of the victims of the Nazi era while focusing on the Jews - which is accurate given the prime motivations of the "final solution/Die Endlösung" the Museum is fair and balanced in its treatment that horrific era. This link is a synopsis of the victims by grouping: http://www.ushmm.org/research/collections/resourcecenter/survivorvictim/

No offense, but those Jews get waay too much attention. Homosexuals have been targeted since the dawn of man and were victims of the Holocaust as well, Native Americans suffered genocide, enslavement and had nearly their entire continent stolen from them, the native inhabitants of what is now known as Latin America were colonized, enslaved into forced labour and suffered genocide in many cases, millions of Asian people in China and the Philippines were tortured, raped and murdered by the Japanese--who I consider to have been even more barbaric than Germany. Why is it that the Jews get so much special attention and get an entire nation out of it in the end at the expense of another innocent population (the Palestinians) who did nothing to them?

Well, Jewish people have done a great job of bringing attention to a horrific period of history. Other persecuted groups are now following suit and asking for international recognition of the genocides they suffered, such as the Assyrians and Armenians. And I've noticed that certain Jewish groups have left the earlier method of educating on behalf of all people, to just really focusing on themselves and hating Christians. Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, denied the Armenian genocide occurred at all until Israel had a falling out with Turkey. There's a book about it, called The Banality of Denial a take off of Hannah Arendt's work The Banality of Evil. A young Israeli man made a documentary on it as well called Defamation. You can watch it on Youtube and draw your own conclusions. Watch what he says to the Ukrainian government about not upstaging the Jewish Holocaust with the Holodomor.

Yes there are many dark periods of history to study, but this thread is about one specific part of history, and it was a terrible thing that happened. The Serbs were slaughtered as well, and the most infamous camp was Jasenovac.

The other aspect of studying the Holocaust is that it is the most well documented genocide, making it an excellent source for studying this aspect of social behavior.

I don't think many people are really down on Germany today.

For whatever reason Virtual Paradise just wanted to start a thread on "Hitler's hate towards the Jews".

Logged

A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

Then it is done, no matter how brave its warriors nor how strong their weapons -- Cheyenne proverb

Only if one classes a person a Jew, even if they do not - which is racist!

Marx was not a practicing member of the Jewish faith.

AND it ignores the examples I gave from Christianity that pre-date Marx by at least 200 years

Jewishness is first an ethnicity than a religion.

That's you imposing your beliefs them. Many people of Jewish background chose to identify themselves as Germans, first. They might 'racially' have been 'mixed'.

My 'race' is of Scottish and German background. I am Australian. For you to call me Scots-German is not how I identify myself.

And Hitler too had a system that one single Jewish grand-parent was enough to make one Jewish. Marx's children would be classified by Hitler as Jews, even though they weren't of that faith and their mother was Jenny von Westphalen - a Prussian

I think people here are too easily changing between Jew (race) and Jew (religious observer) anyway.

"The usual claim is that Germany started WWII by invading Poland. That is war propaganda. It wasn't even called a world war until after the US entered into it which brought in Japan's war with China which gave the war a global scope. So the most we can address with the invasion of Poland is war in Europe.

You're sunk then by your own source again.

IF it wasn't a world war until the US entered the war then Germany and Japan caused the World War because they are the ones who started the war with the United States; Japan by attacking and, Germany by declaring war on the US!

So was it Germany's invasion of Poland that started the general war in Europe? No. It was Britain and France declaring a state of war existed with Germany which did that. Germany did not declare war on Britain and France. Italy did not get into the war until Britain and France declared a state of war existed with Germany.

So, Italy obliged by treaty to come into the war to help Germany is not at fault, by declaring war on France, but Britain is at fault for doing the same thing???

The third point is, although the intention to create such a treaty was announced in the Spring of 1939 it was in only signed eight days before the invasion of Poland. That is skin of the teeth to have it as a cheap propaganda excuse.

It is my understanding that they were obliged to help Poland in defence against Germany, not the Soviet Union.

This is not uncommon. The ANZUS treaty of which Australia, New Zealand, and the United States signed obliges each other to come to the mutual aid if an attack is made in the Pacific. In theory if Australia was attacked from the Indian Ocean side, the US would not be obliged to help.

Similarly when Czechoslovakia was carved up by Germany - Poland and Hungary took their small pieces too.

You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You want to bet? Other than the commercial transaction, that's exactly what happened to many people who were taken from outside Germany, interned in camps and forced to work for various German companies in Nazi Germany. That's what happened to my grandmother and great aunts who were rounded up in France, shipped to north Germany and forced to work at the ammunition factory. No they didn't stay for the rest of their lives, but then many others did (as the death toll from accidents, illness, starvation and ill treatment was pretty high, not to mention the executions) and, of course, the factory was liberated and the camp was used for billeting British soldiers after the war. Neither its end or the fact that it was state sponsored rather than commercial means it was not slavery, however. You can limit slavery to the type of chattel slavery once practised in the US but it doesn't bolster your argument - many of the slaves in the classical world were not held under such conditions either. Or is it your contention that they weren't slaves either?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

From the Jewish Encyclopedia: ""Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception." "Scientific socialism," or what we call communism, says the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in its article on socialism, "originated in the combination of Jewish Messianic feeling with German philosophy" 1 Marx, of course, was Jewish. But, just as important, Jews at all levels, from high financiers like the Warburgs, Schiffs and Rothschilds to rugged revolutionaries like Trotsky, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Zinoviev, made the success of communism possible.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Australia boasts that we never had slavery. Strictly speaking this is true. But we were founded on convict labour (a type of slavery). Also, with force or false promises, Kanakas from New Caledonia were brought to far northern Australia to get the sugar industry going. Their conditions weren't far off slavery either. When Australia became a nation (1901) most of these people were sent back, even though they'd established themselves here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaka_(Pacific_Island_worker)#Australia

One has to be careful about terminology. It would be very easy for me to boast Australia has had no slavery (whereas Germany has), but it would be misleading because of the facts I've just stated.

To say Germany has had no slavery is even more false.

Every country in Europe at one time since Medieval times employed in "serfdom"" which meant different things in each distinct nation in which it was practiced. For many of the poor, it was for their very survival and even flourished by it.

You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You're "serfdom" argument is fallacious or weak at best.

Keep trying.

Firstly, I evidenced that Germany had slavery. Your post didn't address that evidence. Instead you offer a speculation about the joys of serfdom.

Serfdom was tying people to the land. It became enshrined in law, in some cases so that generation after generation were bound to work the land for a lord. Being a 'lord' (the aristocracy) meant not having to do any work - all the serfs do the work for you.

Slavery in Europe in the Middle Ages may have been more 'fluid'* than in antebellum US; and of course it wasn't race-based to begin with. But Germany had slavery! I addressed directly a point made by another poster.

*-by fluid I mean that slavery was not necessarily a generational thing; in some systems slaves could earn some money and eventually buy their own freedom; conversely some people who were in debt became slaves as part of their way of dealing with that debt.

Serfdom too had its moments of fluidity. During and after the Black Death there was such a loss of population in some areas that labour became more valued and people could earn more money. Some families were able to raise themselves out of serfdom.

I note that initially a claim was made from the "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia". It seems so far that this has itself not actually been cited, but rather an on-line commentator's opinion of what he thinks the "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia" says.

One person has cited "Ted Pike" who I believe is an anti-Semite.

Certainly his missives are full of errors

Take this for e.g.

"When Hitler and Mussolini came to power, parliamentary governments had been in place in Germany and Italy for at least a half a century. These dictators established political power outside legislative due process, under the guise of national emergency. They ruled by fiat – claiming such was the only efficient way to regain national power and honor. In just this way, Democrats betrayed justice in the Senate this past week."UNITE AGAINST HATE LAW TYRANNY!

Firstly, it's misleading; Germany's parliament 'the Reichstag' had been in existence since 1871, however it only became a free institution following the end of WWI - previous to that it simply rubber-stamped the wish of the Emperor.

Hitler didn't come to power outside 'due-process'. He was named Chancellor, legally by Paul von Hindenburg. He then formed a coalition with Christian Democrats (such as Franz von Papen)

The Reichstag Fire Decree was issued at Hitlers urging by von Hindenburg.

One point of clarification about what you (at least I think it was you ) said earlier re: declarations of war, etc. I know it's a little nit-picky, but according to this http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/nexus/NXdeclarations.html (which I found via a cursory google search and cannot vouch for the accuracy thereof) it was Poland who declared war on Germany, after Germany invaded her--without first declaring war on Poland. Seems to me, however, that an invasion is a de-facto declaration that a state of war exists. One can also look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland . Just hit control + F to do a word search for "declaration" and see what comes up!

My Grandparents used both Russian and Italian slave labor during WWII. No, they were not paid, and yes, they were shot if they did not work. I have a Ukrainian friend here at work (now retired actually) who's parents both worked slave labor for the Germans. They said that they were treated rather well for the farm families they worked for, but there was not pay and you dared not try to escape. Kind of meets my definition of slavery. In fact, it meats the German definition of slavery because that is exactly what my family called them.

You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You want to bet? Other than the commercial transaction, that's exactly what happened to many people who were taken from outside Germany, interned in camps and forced to work for various German companies in Nazi Germany. That's what happened to my grandmother and great aunts who were rounded up in France, shipped to north Germany and forced to work at the ammunition factory. No they didn't stay for the rest of their lives, but then many others did (as the death toll from accidents, illness, starvation and ill treatment was pretty high, not to mention the executions) and, of course, the factory was liberated and the camp was used for billeting British soldiers after the war. Neither its end or the fact that it was state sponsored rather than commercial means it was not slavery, however. You can limit slavery to the type of chattel slavery once practised in the US but it doesn't bolster your argument - many of the slaves in the classical world were not held under such conditions either. Or is it your contention that they weren't slaves either?

James

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Camberlain's "speech" fell on deaf ears while those Western democracies did nothing to help their supposedly Polish "ally" while the Soviets promptly sucked up the rest of what was left of eastern Poland while again, the Western dmeocracies did nothing.

Then shortly after them "Gentlemen" and their Frog cohorts were chased across the British Channel back where they belonged.

Moral of the story, Britain and France picked a fight in which didn't concern them and they could not win until the "sleeping giant" across the Atlantic become involved with the help of the wounded Bear in the East. The rest as they say, is history.

But you will never convince me or any other serious criticial thinking person of history that;

A. Germany declared war on the Western democracies creating WWII.

B. Those same democracies engaged in a dangerous chess game with a German regime still licking it's wounds and recovering from a from a major war it did not start and never actually finished or "surrendered".

C. Again those same "democracies" while taking a good game against the NS's were totally complicit in the eventual rise and success of the Communist beast in the East, while not only encouraging and enabling that monster but activley financing and "allying" with it.

To many this is completely unacceptable and totally removes the Western democracies from having any kind of the moral "high ground,".

One point of clarification about what you (at least I think it was you ) said earlier re: declarations of war, etc. I know it's a little nit-picky, but according to this http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/nexus/NXdeclarations.html (which I found via a cursory google search and cannot vouch for the accuracy thereof) it was Poland who declared war on Germany, after Germany invaded her--without first declaring war on Poland. Seems to me, however, that an invasion is a de-facto declaration that a state of war exists. One can also look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland . Just hit control + F to do a word search for "declaration" and see what comes up!

Not to be nit-picky, myself... but I believe that the very act of invading is a declaration of war. Thus when the US went to war against Japan (when FDR gave his infamy speech in Congress) they stated that the war had started already. All they were doing was formally declaring what they believed to be already happening... and I suppose then there are certain legal devices one can use once its formally been declared - if this were not the case then Americans could be prosecuted for firing back on the Japanese because no formal declaration of war had been declared.

Also, Germany executed some of their political prisoners, dressed them up as Poles and declared that their invasion was simply a reaction to Polish troops crossing over into Germany!

Leni Riefenstahl, the film-maker helped construct propaganda film to show that the Poles had actually, technically 'invaded' Germany first!

I don't know why it drives some non-Jews to wildly crazy to suggest it.

Marx was not religiously a Jew.

What drives me wild is that even when some Jews because secularised in Germany in the 1800s; either becoming nominally Christian, or atheists, racists still said that they were Jewish.

Speaking of 'rabid' they then condemned to death people who only had one grand-parent who was a Jew!

And others defend here the acts of those who murdered those people!

The whole basis of racism is to ascribe traits that one has inherited, and in this case they classify Marx as a Jew, because of 'race', even if he chose to marry a Prussian, and wasn't a practicing member of the Jewish faith. And his children who were even less 'Jewish' would still be deemed to be 'Jews' by those same racists

Camberlain's "speech" fell on deaf ears while those Western democracies did nothing to help their supposedly Polish "ally" while the Soviets promptly sucked up the rest of what was left of eastern Poland while again, the Western dmeocracies did nothing.

There you go refuting yourself again!

If that speech did NOTHING - then your argument that Britain started the war is refuted by your own claim that nothing happened!

What is called 'the phoney war' (or Sitzkreig) was still a war: Britain built up troops in France - because lo and behold they were caught off-guard, because it was Germany that had been fully armed! However their navy was able to engage the Germans (such as fighting the pocket-battleship Graf Spee)

Moral of the story, Britain and France picked a fight in which didn't concern them and they could not win until the "sleeping giant" across the Atlantic become involved with the help of the wounded Bear in the East. The rest as they say, is history.

Yes, that's Britain's finest hour! Entering the war on principle against a nation that had been arming and training for years!

But you will never convince me or any other serious criticial thinking person of history that;

A. Germany declared war on the Western democracies creating WWII.

B. Those same democracies engaged in a dangerous chess game with a German regime still licking it's wounds and recovering from a from a major war it did not start and never actually finished or "surrendered".

C. Again those same "democracies" while taking a good game against the NS's were totally complicit in the eventual rise and success of the Communist beast in the East, while not only encouraging and enabling that monster but activley financing and "allying" with it.

To many this is completely unacceptable and totally removes the Western democracies from having any kind of the moral "high ground,".[/quote]

You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You want to bet? Other than the commercial transaction, that's exactly what happened to many people who were taken from outside Germany, interned in camps and forced to work for various German companies in Nazi Germany. That's what happened to my grandmother and great aunts who were rounded up in France, shipped to north Germany and forced to work at the ammunition factory. No they didn't stay for the rest of their lives, but then many others did (as the death toll from accidents, illness, starvation and ill treatment was pretty high, not to mention the executions) and, of course, the factory was liberated and the camp was used for billeting British soldiers after the war. Neither its end or the fact that it was state sponsored rather than commercial means it was not slavery, however. You can limit slavery to the type of chattel slavery once practised in the US but it doesn't bolster your argument - many of the slaves in the classical world were not held under such conditions either. Or is it your contention that they weren't slaves either?

James

I'm not getting into an emotional discussion about all the horrors of NS Germany .

You can say whatever you want and there's no way to prove either way and of course the Germans will always be labeled as "monsters" who should all be rounded up , shot and burn in hell forever. and that's without ever giving them a chance to vindicate themsleves or hear their side of the story.

No one really wants to get at the truth of that time period just a call for the eternal bloodlust of the German people for the supposed crimes against humanity that occured before,during and after the war.

Someone can start a thread on just that, but in some parts of the world, even discussing it can you charged with a "hate crime".

The only thing I know, is the more they try and suppress the truth, the more evident it becomes.

You can say whatever you want and there's no way to prove either way and of course the Germans will always be labeled as "monsters" who should all be rounded up , shot and burn in hell forever. and that's without ever giving them a chance to vindicate themsleves or hear their side of the story.

Who has advocated them all being shot?

Even after all their monstrous horrors were discovered the allies didn't do this

No one really wants to get at the truth of that time period just a call for the eternal bloodlust of the German people for the supposed crimes against humanity that occured before,during and after the war.

What do you mean 'supposed crimes'? At the time the camps were liberated the allies took locals through the camps to both

I don't know why it drives some non-Jews to wildly crazy to suggest it.

Marx was not religiously a Jew.

What drives me wild is that even when some Jews because secularised in Germany in the 1800s; either becoming nominally Christian, or atheists, racists still said that they were Jewish.

Speaking of 'rabid' they then condemned to death people who only had one grand-parent who was a Jew!

And others defend here the acts of those who murdered those people!

The whole basis of racism is to ascribe traits that one has inherited, and in this case they classify Marx as a Jew, because of 'race', even if he chose to marry a Prussian, and wasn't a practicing member of the Jewish faith. And his children who were even less 'Jewish' would still be deemed to be 'Jews' by those same racists

Is there any other religion on the face of the Earth more racial or "racists" than Judaism?

For crying out loud, the Orthodox believe you can't even be a true Jew unless your biological mother was one.

I don't know why it drives some non-Jews to wildly crazy to suggest it.

Marx was not religiously a Jew.

What drives me wild is that even when some Jews because secularised in Germany in the 1800s; either becoming nominally Christian, or atheists, racists still said that they were Jewish.

Speaking of 'rabid' they then condemned to death people who only had one grand-parent who was a Jew!

And others defend here the acts of those who murdered those people!

The whole basis of racism is to ascribe traits that one has inherited, and in this case they classify Marx as a Jew, because of 'race', even if he chose to marry a Prussian, and wasn't a practicing member of the Jewish faith. And his children who were even less 'Jewish' would still be deemed to be 'Jews' by those same racists

Is there any other religion on the face of the Earth more racial or "racists" than Judaism?

For crying out loud, the Orthodox believe you can't even be a true Jew unless your biological mother was one.

In other words, you have to be born a Jew or forget it!

Now you tell me, does it get any more "racist" than that?

Actually it is not racist at all, considering someone can convert to orthodox Judaism, and it is forbidden to remind someone they were a convert or hold any idea that they are 'less Jewish' in any way at all. The idea that they are not a 'true Jew' is certainly not one they hold... the Midrash even says a convert is more dear to God than those born into Judaism or those who were at mount Sinai.

You can call serdom whatever you want but at the end of the day, you can't call it slavery. Not like slavery was practiced in the British Empire or the U.S., nobody in Europe's "serfdom's" were snatched out of their indigenous lands, transported and sold off or auctioned to the highest bidder and forced into a life of slave labor under the thumb of their "master" for the rest of their natural lives.

Germany, as long as it has been a nation, has never engaged in this practice.

You want to bet? Other than the commercial transaction, that's exactly what happened to many people who were taken from outside Germany, interned in camps and forced to work for various German companies in Nazi Germany. That's what happened to my grandmother and great aunts who were rounded up in France, shipped to north Germany and forced to work at the ammunition factory. No they didn't stay for the rest of their lives, but then many others did (as the death toll from accidents, illness, starvation and ill treatment was pretty high, not to mention the executions) and, of course, the factory was liberated and the camp was used for billeting British soldiers after the war. Neither its end or the fact that it was state sponsored rather than commercial means it was not slavery, however. You can limit slavery to the type of chattel slavery once practised in the US but it doesn't bolster your argument - many of the slaves in the classical world were not held under such conditions either. Or is it your contention that they weren't slaves either?

I'm not getting into an emotional discussion about all the horrors of NS Germany .

You can say whatever you want and there's no way to prove either way and of course the Germans will always be labeled as "monsters" who should all be rounded up , shot and burn in hell forever. and that's without ever giving them a chance to vindicate themsleves or hear their side of the story.

No one really wants to get at the truth of that time period just a call for the eternal bloodlust of the German people for the supposed crimes against humanity that occured before,during and after the war.

Someone can start a thread on just that, but in some parts of the world, even discussing it can you charged with a "hate crime".

The only thing I know, is the more they try and suppress the truth, the more evident it becomes.

If your a Christian, you should certainly relate to that.

After the war some Germans in local villages around the death camps were forced to go into the camps and witness what was going on right next door.

Some Germans were put into the camps themselves. Some places they were interred had no shelter, potable water, etc. and the death rates were very high. Basically they got a taste of their own medicine, especially on the Soviet side, but also from the Allies.

Germans themselves have outlawed Nazi politics. Denial of the Holocaust is illegal there too. Both are legal in the United States as protected speech, of which you appear to fully avail yourself. Germany stepped up, apologized, and tried to pay reparations to survivors. You are complaining that their side of the story is not heard, but not even Germany is interested in making excuses for themselves for an insane period of their history. They've moved on, Germany is a very successful country today, one of the most successful in the EU at this point in time. Most Germans today could not imagine participating in what occurred during WWII. They are completely shocked when some random American goes on a shooting spree. I've even heard one say, "That would never happen in Germany!"

German schools probably educate people about what happened as well. Japan doesn't do that so much. Different culture.

I haven't noticed anyone on this thread who is hoping for them to be rounded up, shot, or any other violence committed against them. I would hope there is no wholesale eternal condemnation of the German people either.

Sometimes people discuss history simply because they are interested in understanding the past, and how that creates the present day social milieu, or simply because the past is interesting enough in itself, not to engender hatred toward a group of people. Some try to learn from past mistakes, but to actually implement that takes a force of collective will, which Germany seems to have achieved.

Have you read any Bonhoeffer?

Logged

A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

Then it is done, no matter how brave its warriors nor how strong their weapons -- Cheyenne proverb

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Just came across this:

Quote

DNA links prove Jews are a ‘race,' says genetics expertConjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Can't you start new threads any longer?

Are you replying as a mod or a regular poster? The lack of moderator green has me intrigued. But to answer your question, sport, this forum has a rich heritage of splitting off child threads to keep the parent thread on topic. I perused the myriad of ever-changing rules and didn't see where mods have exclusive rights to split-off child threads. Still, the precedent was set long ago, so... If it's too complicated, I'll start a new thread.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

What drives me wild is that even when some Jews because secularised in Germany in the 1800s; either becoming nominally Christian, or atheists, racists still said that they were Jewish.

No, their religion/belief system believes they still remain a Jew, always and forever. Again, even the Jews will admit this. I don't understand why people like you can't grasp the fact that Judaism is a racial religion, just because one converts to this or that or even embraces no belief at all, it still doesn't exempt him from being a Jew. Why then would there be Christian Jews or Muslim Jews or Buddhist Jews or even atheist Jews? We even have many Orthodox "Jews" on this board, so why is it so sacrilege to confirm what the Jews themselves have never denied? Once one is born a Jew, he's a Jew for life. It's like a club with permanent membership, all you have to do is be born in the right place. This is not "hate" in acknowledging this, just the bitter truth.

Quote

Speaking of 'rabid' they then condemned to death people who only had one grand-parent who was a Jew!

I believe the one Jew grandparent thing was not sufficient enough to pass the Mischling Test in most cases. Very few were "condemned to death". At any rate, as I stated earlier, I refuse to get into a debate about Jews and the "holocaust" on this or most threads, people really can't have a rational and factual discussion without all kinds of fanatical and fantastical accusations.

Quote

And others defend here the acts of those who murdered those people!

You are quite insane. I insist you prove where anyone on here defended any "murderers".

I'm curious, do you get this upset over abortion doctors? That I could understand.

Quote

The whole basis of racism is to ascribe traits that one has inherited, and in this case they classify Marx as a Jew, because of 'race', even if he chose to marry a Prussian, and wasn't a practicing member of the Jewish faith. And his children who were even less 'Jewish' would still be deemed to be 'Jews' by those same racists

The Jews still consider him a racial/ethnic Jew regardless. Once born a biological Jew always a Jew. that is their belief system, not ours.For them, race transcends religion. Now you tell me , who's the "racists"?

Quote from: Charles Martel on Yesterday at 08:18:54 PMI'm not getting into an emotional discussion about all the horrors of NS Germany .Why not? Your posts supporting them is of interest

My posts merely point a few things, namely that many Jews were complicit in some way for the Nazi "blowback" against much of organized Jewry and their Communist allies. Also, that the Anglos were on board for the very war you refuse to concieve that they started and agitated from the beginning. I just believe there is much more to the story of the origins of WWII than the Germans or NS were just a "evil" race of people who just woke up one day hating Jews and starting a world war.

Quote

Who has advocated them all being shot?

Even after all their monstrous horrors were discovered the allies didn't do this

Many of them actually were and let's not forget the Allied genocide of places like Dresden and the mass murder and rape of German civilians by the Red Army that wonderful "ally" of Britain and America.

Quote

truly amazing (and warped) that someone addressing a fact is accused of a hate crime

I agree, been to "Free" and " Democratic" Germany lately?

No one is allowed to question the official ADL version of the "holoco$t" without the threat of arrest, fines and imprisonment.

They will even go after Catholic Bishops in charging them with heresy about questioning any aspect of the holocaust religion. even the pope is challenged to go along with the program or else. This modern day "McCarthyism" over the the holocaust religion hasn't been seen since the Salem witch trials. Absolute madness.

Quote

No Christian would support the Nazis

Germany was predominately Christian when it elected Hitler Chancellor in 1933.

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Just came across this:

Quote

DNA links prove Jews are a ‘race,' says genetics expertConjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

Please explain how a Chinese Jew, an Ethiopian Jew and a Sephardic Jew belong to the same race. Also, how did Sammy Davis Jr. change his race by converting and becoming a Jew?

Again, even the Jews will admit this. I don't understand why people like you can't grasp the fact that Judaism is a racial religion, just because one converts to this or that or even embraces no belief at all, it still doesn't exempt him from being a Jew. Why then would there be Christian Jews or Muslim Jews or Buddhist Jews or even atheist Jews? We even have many Orthodox "Jews" on this board, so why is it so sacrilege to confirm what the Jews themselves have never denied? Once one is born a Jew, he's a Jew for life. It's like a club with permanent membership, all you have to do is be born in the right place. This is not "hate" in acknowledging this, just the bitter truth.

Because Marx wasn't religiously a Jew. You're saying that Jewishness is a 'racial religion' - well Marx might be 'racially' a Jew, but he wasn't the religious Jew, so he's not Jewish by your own definition!

Very few were "condemned to death". At any rate, as I stated earlier, I refuse to get into a debate about Jews and the "holocaust" on this or most threads, people really can't have a rational and factual discussion without all kinds of fanatical and fantastical accusations.

Also, that the Anglos were on board for the very war you refuse to concieve that they started and agitated from the beginning. I just believe there is much more to the story of the origins of WWII than the Germans or NS were just a "evil" race of people who just woke up one day hating Jews and starting a world war.

Many of them actually were and let's not forget the Allied genocide of places like Dresden and the mass murder and rape of German civilians by the Red Army that wonderful "ally" of Britain and America.

that's different.

You said that people advocated the extinction of the Germans (by having them all shot). Now you change this to 'many'.

I think that's the essence of the problem your argument has; you continually mix up terminologies.

They will even go after Catholic Bishops in charging them with heresy about questioning any aspect of the holocaust religion. even the pope is challenged to go along with the program or else. This modern day "McCarthyism" over the the holocaust religion hasn't been seen since the Salem witch trials. Absolute madness.

Germany was predominately Christian when it elected Hitler Chancellor in 1933.

I agree, but I'm not talking about then, but now, where we have the benefit of hindsight and can see the evil of Nazism - well most can. Some choose to think black is white and then decry people for trying to stop them saying it!

You can argue against yourself continually (such as denying you're a denier, then arguing everything in favour of holocaust denial!)

Many of them actually were and let's not forget the Allied genocide of places like Dresden and the mass murder and rape of German civilians by the Red Army that wonderful "ally" of Britain and America.

No one denies the revenge the Russians took on Germany! That's the problem with your arguments! Whilst you deny the holocaust you raise issues that are significantly less brutal (as some weird tu quoque defence of Nazism), that no one denies, anyway! You're continually confusing points.

The bombing of Dresden's another issue apart from the Russian revenge. It's simply one of whether during the war, the city was a legitimate target or not. Given that it was in Germany, and Germany was at war (which they started), then yes it was.

If Germany didn't want Dresden bombed they could have surrendered earlier.

What we end up seeing is a strange apology for evil; and it's illogic is prove in argument that is self-refuting.

It seems that the Germans were forced to exterminate Jews because of a Judeo-Communist connection. However then we see that there's a denial that the Germans exterminated the Jews!

So the Germans were forced to do something that itself is denied!

It was argued that Britain actually started the war! If this were true then it's further self-refuting argument because it would then be like saying "Germany was forced by Jews/Communists to start a war, that they didn't start!"

By denying EVERYTHING at once on the part of Germany we see an illogical argument develop

I would like to explore this a little more. Mods, can we split this off so as not to hijack this thread?

Either I haven't seen the split-off or hijacking is no longer an issue. Sooooo...

I've never been able to fully understand Judaism as an ethnicity for the simple fact that there are Ashkenazi Jews (White/Caucasian), Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean/Spanish), Mizrahim Jews (Near Eastern/Arabic), Ethiopian Jews (African/Black), and a few others (Indian?). We can clearly see where it might be confusing when some posit Judaism is an ethnicity.

Just came across this:

Quote

DNA links prove Jews are a ‘race,' says genetics expertConjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

Please explain how a Chinese Jew, an Ethiopian Jew and a Sephardic Jew belong to the same race. Also, how did Sammy Davis Jr. change his race by converting and becoming a Jew?

There are also Moslem hindus and Christian hindus as well. Nevertheless the Indian people believe that they are "people of the soil", in other words, if you are an indigenous Indian (Hindu), that will always be your race regardless what "religion" you convert to.

There is a similiarity here with Orthodox Jews.

Judaism is still a race-based religion, I don't understand what's so hard to believe this, Jews even admit it. I believe that when it concerns lineage they go by what the mother was, not father. This keeps in line with the belief that many believe that you're not a real Jew unless your mother was, yes there are converts but they are accpeted in a different light than the true, bio-Jew. I have friends who married into the Jewish religion and tell me unequivocally, that they are treated more or less as a second-class citizen at the Synagouge or in the very least like an outsider, even though they "coverted" through marriage.